Abhi Masanna Gari discussed the proposal to use a scaling factor of 5 by 7 in the HDL and LDL constraints, similar to the existing ramp sharing methodology.
The proposal included incorporating language related to scaling factors into ERCOT protocols, specifically identifying section 6.5.7.3, paragraph 12, as a suitable location.
The proposed language is preliminary and will go through the NPRR process and stakeholder review.
There was a discussion about how scaling factors interact with SCED to give feasible awards for energy and regulation up/down, ensuring dispatch stays between HDL and LDL.
The concept allows for rare cases where dispatch can exceed HDL due to the scaling factor assumption that energy and regulation are not fully deployed simultaneously.
The methodology preserves ramp for regulation, allowing sharing between base points and regulation awards to maximize efficiency.
Dave clarified that it is more about preserving ramp rate rather than violating HDL, emphasizing the balance between ramp for regulation and the SCED base point.
Abhi acknowledged and promised to correct an error in a slide regarding the formula for base point minus regulation.
Future discussions on this issue will continue in subsequent agenda items.
The presentation is in draft mode with finalization expected next week.
The plan provides direction for QSEs and vendors on market trial systems and digital certificate usage.
Objective is to separate QSE/vendor sandbox testing and QSE submission testing from production to prevent test errors entering production.
Timeline includes initial sandbox testing from March to April, transitioning to open loop testing in July.
Specific certificates and URLs provided for different testing phases and go-live transition.
RTC MOTE and Market Trial URL links will be provided by February for the submission testing phase, will be disabled when transitioning into open loop testing.
Development phase requires current MOTE certificates in March and April.
Open loop testing begins in July with current production certificates.
Market URLs and listener URL configurations for notifications discussed.
Feedback requested on the plan, with finalization and communication to follow through TWG and RTCBTF meetings.
Task force is advised to keep track of URL and certificate transitions.
4.2 - Training Update – Review Initial Video Postings - Matt Mereness
The initiative is focused on providing 'just in time readiness' rather than traditional training.
Development of a one-page executive summary instead of a five-minute video as preferred by executives.
Upcoming presentation on RTC+B Basics by Dave, which includes changes in real-time co-optimization.
Self-serve video recordings available on the task force homepage for market transition readiness.
Nathan Smith and Maggie created video modules on market submissions and settlement extracts respectively.
Videos can be accessed on the RTCBTF homepage under ‘Training Videos’ or through this link.
Eight training modules planned to be released over the next 3-4 months.
Feedback is welcomed on these training resource modules.
A new approach compared to previous nodal training, with added voiceover for clarity.
ERCOT's training materials will be updated for ERCOT participants once new processes go live.
Videos serve as an interim measure for market participants transitioning to new business processes.
Consideration of having a link from the regular training page to these new resources.
5 - Discussion of NPRR for RTC+B Parameters - Matt Mereness
Discussion around NPRR for RTC+B parameters is ongoing and still a work in progress.
Parameters referred to as TAC approved are being prepared for the go live phase.
Emphasis on focusing on mechanics and avoiding challenging technical details that can be addressed later.
ERCOT flagged certain parameters to ensure they can be adjusted without changing underlying code.
Recent years saw ERCOT moving away from Other Binding documents, such as TAC approved processes, and towards formalized records for parameter adjustment.
There is a risk of controversy over TAC approved parameters without clear governance for resolution.
ERCOT aims to maintain formal records with comments and revision requests for better stakeholder transparency.
Goal to avoid last-minute disruptions and ensure parameters are settled once and for all.
ERCOT aims to prepare a draft NPRR covering AS proxy offer floors, ramp rate sharing, AS demand curves for RUC, and ancillary service duration requirements by December.
AS proxy offer floors are under review based on current outcomes to update language in protocol 6.5.7.3.
Scaling factors and AS demand curves for RUC will be addressed in sections like 5.5.2 of protocols and targeted for release by December or January.
Ancillary service duration requirements and state of charge are focused on January through March 2025, referencing history from NPRR1096 and NPRR1186.
Plan to file an NPRR in December or January, proceeding without full solutions to create a framework to incorporate finalized solutions later.
NPRR process aims to have a structured analysis and stakeholder feedback completed by March for May market trials.
Timelines have been set for approvals: PRS by March 12, TAC by March 26, board by April 8, and PUC by May 15.
6 - Review of Parameters for AS Proxy Offers - Dave Maggio
Dave Maggio presented an idea for proxy ancillary service offer floors, shared initially at the last task force meeting.
The idea derives proxies from AS demand curves; discussion on potential changes to AS demand curves in the next agenda item.
Comparison of previous proposals: zero dollar/megawatt and $2,000/megawatt proxy floors; analyzed pros and cons.
Concerns raised included resources being awarded ahead of others without offers, affecting incentives for proper submissions by QSEs.
Proposed new approach: Set proxy floor to the minimum of $2,000/megawatt or where the AS demand curve intersects with planned AS quantity.
Presentation of analyses: energy and ancillary service prices, showing differences in award scenarios under various approaches.
Consideration of new parameters in light of potential adjustments to the ancillary service demand curves as presented by IMM.
Stakeholder feedback: Mixed reactions, highlight potential for proxy offers to undermine competitive offers, proposal of alternative methods like setting proxy offers slightly above certain points in the ASDC.
Emphasis on obtaining a balanced solution to avoid artificial scarcity while maintaining incentives for market participation.
Understanding that the discussed concepts will need to be reevaluated with forthcoming changes in AS demand curves.
Stakeholder Feedback
Concerns about proxy offers potentially undercutting competitive offers.
Suggestion to incorporate some buffering (e.g., plus a dollar) above certain points on the demand curve.
Some stakeholders see the merit in incentivizing submissions by renewables.
Acknowledgment that changes in AS demand curves could affect the planned approach.
Overall desire for a balanced approach that ensures reserves are met while fostering a competitive market.
Action Items
Further analysis and consideration of alternative points on the demand curve for setting proxy offers.
Include stakeholder suggestions and concerns in further exploratory analyses.
Prepare for discussions in the next meeting with new analyses and potential adjustments.
Introduction to the IMM's proposed improvements to RTC ancillary service demand curves (ASDCs).
ASDCs represent system demand for real-time reserves, with each ASDC representing demand for on AS product
Nesting ASDCs means each product is substitutable in the optimization itself for any lower quality product
Concerns with current ERCOT ASDCs include inefficiencies in product trade-offs during scarcity and underpricing of certain services.
IMM has developed an alternative disaggregation approach called blended ASDCs.
Presentation includes comparative analysis of three sets of ASDCs: currently approved ERCOT KP 1.1 ASDCs, nested ASDCs, and blended ASDCs.
Discussion of whether KP 1.1(4) aggregate ORDC can be effectively disaggregated to produce efficient, independent non-nested ASDCs.
Blended ASDCs aim to achieve comparable market efficiency, allow efficient trading between products, and provide appropriate pricing and incentives.
IMM proposes that blended ASDCs mitigate issues of current ASDCs underpricing ECRs and non-spin.
Study results show blended ASDCs align pricing more closely with nested ASDCs, suggesting nested ASDCs might not be necessary for ERCOT.
Additional studies and simulator tools were used to compare outcomes in scenarios of extreme scarcity.
Discussion of procurement dynamics highlighted concerns about SCED's ability to make trade-offs in product procurement during shortages.
Conclusive insights include that independent ASDCs can be effective and efficient provided proper adjustments are made.
Compared with KP 1.1(5) ASDCs, blended ASDCs produce more predictable and efficient pricing outcomes under shortage.
Concerns raised about the assumption that ASDCs should start with an aggregate ORDC, questioning its efficacy and impact on reflecting true reliability value.
Recommendations include formalizing blended ASDCs, conducting further analyses and consultation, and considering the removal of the ORDC aggregate requirement for improved alignment with system reliability.
Dave Maggio led the presentation and provided a verbal update.
8.1 - ERCOT Update based on Feedback from prior RTCBTF Meeting
Feedback from the previous meeting was addressed regarding the need to simulate telemetry for resources not currently having capability telemetry.
Focus remains on resources qualified to provide ancillary services while exploring forecasted information for simulating telemetry.
Internal discussions on validating capability telemetry under RTC, both pre and post-implementation, continue as a work in progress.
Ongoing consideration of operations managing ancillary services on resources behind constraints, particularly IROLs and some focus on GTCs.
Additional materials and updates may be shared in future meetings, possibly in December, regarding operations' handling of constraints.
Provision of data sets, including AS demand curves, individual resources schedules, system-level data, and transmission constraints, offered for review and feedback.
Encouragement for feedback on the provided data files to make necessary tweaks.
Discussed use of RTC simulation tool to evaluate different case studies including mild days and days with high volatility.
Presented findings from simulations showing RTC's ability to smooth pricing volatility and efficiently allocate reserves.
Highlighted differences in congestion management between pre-RTC and RTC models, showing RTC's effectiveness in reducing congestion.
Explained assumptions and limitations in the analysis, including configurable AS proxy floors, use of DAM AS offers, and qualifications of wind and solar resources.
Addressed concerns about placing ancillary services behind constraints and the potential risk it poses to reliability.
Explored the impacts of parameter decisions on future studies and suggestions to save bandwidth for finalized parameter testing.
Discussed interest in running additional simulations, including more extreme weather and scarce resource days.
Highlighted request for further breakdown on transmission congestion and ancillary service allocation geography.
Expressed appreciation and support for ongoing analysis by ERCOT and its value in assessing RTC impacts.
Confirmed interest in selected dates for future analysis based on significant events or pricing outcomes.
Acknowledged positive feedback on the practicality and visualization of provided data.
Discussed potential future topics, such as the effects of allocating ancillaries and the principle of allocating on curtailed wind and solar.
Acknowledged the need for further simulations to determine impacts on the total cost and objective market function.
